Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

Children 2014, 1, 280-301; doi:10.


ISSN 2227-9067

Seeking Balance in Motion: The Role of Spontaneous Free Play

in Promoting Social and Emotional Health in Early Childhood
Care and Education
Jane Hewes

Early Learning and Child Care, Faculty of Health and Community Studies, MacEwan University,
Edmonton AB T5J4P2, Canada; E-Mail: hewesj@macewan.ca; Tel.: +1-780-497-5193;
Fax: +1-780-497-5848

External Editors: Ute Navidi and Sari Acra

Received: 14 August 2014; in revised form: 17 September 2014 / Accepted: 18 September 2014 /
Published: 01 October 2014

Abstract: There is accumulating scientific evidence of the potential of play and

playfulness to enhance human capacity to respond to adversity and cope with the stresses
of everyday life. In play we build a repertoire of adaptive, flexible responses to unexpected
events, in an environment separated from the real consequences of those events.
Playfulness helps us maintain social and emotional equilibrium in times of rapid change
and stress. Through play, we experience flow—A feeling of being taken to another place,
out of time, where we have controlled of the world. This paper argues that spontaneous
free play, controlled and directed by children and understood from the child’s perspective,
contributes to children’s subjective experience of well-being, building a foundation for life-
long social and emotional health. The paradoxical nature of young children’s spontaneous free
play is explored. Adaptability, control, flexibility, resilience and balance result from the
experience of uncertainty, unpredictability, novelty and non-productivity. These essential
dimensions of young children’s spontaneous free play typically produce play which is
experienced by adults as chaotic, nonsensical and disruptive. The article concludes with a
preliminary discussion of the challenges and possibilities of providing for spontaneous free
play indoors, in early childhood care and education programs.

Keywords: spontaneous free play; playfulness; social and emotional health; early
childhood care and education; rough and tumble play; dizzy play
Children 2014, 1 281

1. Introduction

Any discussion of young children’s health would be incomplete without some reference to the role
of play. Early childhood development is a determinant of health [1]. There is compelling neuroscientific
evidence of the significance of early experience to life-long mental, as well as physical health [2], and
accumulating evidence of the adaptive value of play and playfulness in the development of social
competence, emotional resilience, and flexibility in response to unpredictability and stress [3,4]. The
child is a citizen with the right to play [5]. There is an urgent need to articulate the conditions that
ensure the young child’s right to spontaneous free play in the increasingly formal environments in
which early childhood experience unfolds.
Profound changes in the physical and social environments of early experience in the western world
are constraining opportunities for spontaneous free play in early childhood [6]. Changes in the
demographics of family life are accompanied by an institutionalization of free play: young children are
spending long hours in non-parental group care [7]; the majority of families now lives in cities, where
traffic and urban land-use patterns have changed the natural play territory of childhood and children
are less likely to have access to outdoor play spaces in natural environments; families are increasingly
concerned about neighborhood safety, and are choosing to enroll young preschool children in
structured education, recreation, and organized sports programs, leaving little time for self-initiated
play [6]. There is growing concern amongst academics, professionals, policy makers and community
leaders alike that the decline in free play opportunities may be a contributing factor to increasing rates
of childhood obesity, and to the alarming increase in the incidence of anxiety, stress and depression in
young children [8–14].
Neuroscientific evidence of the significance of early experience not just to individual health, but
also to the long term social and economic prosperity of society as a whole [1,15] is driving a new
public policy agenda in early childhood development. The evidence highlights the interconnectedness
of physical, intellectual, social and emotional development [16], and of physical and mental health.
There is powerful evidence about the impact of excessive stress and adversity in the early years on the
incidence of a range of chronic diseases in adulthood [17], creating a new emphasis on the importance
of social and emotional health in early childhood [2] and growing public policy interest in early
intervention with children living in families coping with the stresses of poverty, violence, mental
illness, and substance abuse. Early childhood is on the public policy agenda, and the environments
where children spend time in their pre-school years are under intense scrutiny [18].
The focus of the public policy agenda in Canada and much of the Western world is on combatting
sedentary lifestyles and childhood obesity, increasing self-regulation and impulse control, and ensuring
school readiness, particularly for young children whose development may be compromised by social
and environmental factors. This agenda is instrumentalizing [19,20] and pedagogizing [21] children’s
play in the service of adult goals. Taking a playful approach to learning can be very effective, however
it frequently takes control of the play away from the players, changing the experience for the player.
However well-intentioned, the intensity of the adult agenda for early childhood, in combination with
the changing social reality of early childhood experience, is crowding out children’s opportunities for
spontaneous free play, an approach that undermines the benefits of play, and ultimately limits its
potential to contribute to health [18]. Even very young children are now losing the opportunity to play
Children 2014, 1 282

for their own purposes and with this, essential opportunities to build the foundation of play, and
playfulness, which determine in large part their subjective sense of well-being and belonging in
childhood and may well affect their physical and mental health long into the future.
This paper explores the potential of spontaneous free play controlled and directed by children
themselves, to contribute to children’s experience of a healthy childhood and subjective well-being in
the present, as well as to the foundation of life-long social and emotional health. The paper argues that
opportunities for spontaneous free play, in particular spontaneous free play that allows young children to
explore those dimensions of play which may appear to be chaotic, nonsensical and disruptive to adults, is
key to their health and well-being. The barriers, challenges and possibilities of providing for these kinds
of spontaneous free play opportunities in group early childhood care and education settings are explored.

2. Spontaneous Free Play and Health

Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) challenges us to
understand play from the perspective of the child, as a positive factor in children’s lives, and from their
perspective, as a “necessity of life” [22] (p. 469). This section of the paper discusses the foundation for
viewing young children’s spontaneous free play as necessary to their subjective sense of well-being in
childhood, and considers the evidence that it also contributes to a foundation for social and emotional
health and resilience over the life-span.
Section 2.1 considers both recent and established theoretical and conceptual writing defining the
nature and characteristics of spontaneous free play, in order to distinguish it from other play-based
approaches. Understanding play from the perspective of the player and children’s purposes in play is
critical to understanding its benefits to social and emotional health. Section 2.2 looks more specifically
at the disruptive dimensions of play in relationship to the emerging evidence about the role of
spontaneous free play in developing flexibility and adaptability, building the capacity to cope with
everyday stress and anxiety. The body of knowledge coalescing around the value of rough and tumble
play in healthy social and emotional development in early childhood provides a focus for understanding
how children play with the ongoing social and emotional self-balancing that is fundamental to
successful participation in social life.

2.1. The Nature of Play and Spontaneous Free Play in Early Childhood

“Play is a thing by itself” [23] (p. 45). The recognition of play as a distinct conceptual category and
an irreducible concept in human culture rings true nearly 75 years after the publication of Homo
Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Huizinga emphasizes that play cannot be reduced to
other terms or understood by connecting it to a functional purpose that is not play, arguing that to be
understood, play must be seen as the player(s) sees it [23] (p. 21). Seeking always to understand the
perspective of the player—the child’s purposes in playing—is critical to understanding the social and
emotional benefits of spontaneous free play in early childhood. For purposes of this paper, it is
important to consider some of the defining characteristics of spontaneous free play in childhood, in
order to distinguish it clearly from notions of “educational play”, “guided play”, and “purposeful
play”, which have crept into recent academic and policy literature, and to highlight some of the key
Children 2014, 1 283

features of spontaneous free play that speak to its value in promoting social and emotional health in
early childhood.
The defining characteristic of spontaneous free play is the control of the play by the players. This is
the source of some of its unique benefits for children, and most enduring challenges for adults.
Children, particularly young children, are never really in control of their everyday lives. Nonetheless,
the experience of being in control and making decisions in play can contribute to children’s
understanding of themselves as social actors and active participants in determining the course of their
daily lives. Although play is not the only experience that affords children an opportunity to make their
own decisions, in spontaneous free play controlled by the players, children can explore what it means
to be in control of themselves and others, without the full responsibility of being in control.
Importantly, play also offers a context where children can explore being out of control, in ways that are
often unacceptable outside of the play context. For the child, play and playing is fundamentally about
agency, power, and control. In play, children actively explore their own social and physical power, in
relationship to the world, and to other children. As each child participates with other children in the
social contexts of play, exploring and testing and making decisions at the edges of their own
possibility, they come to understand what it means to be in control, and what it means to be out of
control. When left to control their own play, they do explore what it means to exert their own power
over others, and they do take chances and physical risks. These are essential dimensions of
spontaneous free play that present critical ethical challenges for adults. It is worthy of note that the
notions of participation and control are deeply embedded in the language of health promotion [24].
Active participation in community and in particular in the decisions that affect us contributes to a sense
of control over the multiple factors that influence not just our physical and mental health, but also our
subjective sense of well-being and belonging.
The question “What is play?” both plagues and fascinates researchers, writers, philosophers, poets,
parents and educators. Children, arguably the experts on play and playing, seem to know exactly what
it is and are unconcerned with trying to call it anything else. As play theorist Brian Sutton-Smith
observes, “We all play occasionally, and we all know what playing feels like. However, when it comes
to making theoretical statements about what play is, we descend into silliness” [25] (p.1).
Play has a pervasive and ubiquitous presence in human culture and across multiple animal species.
We tend to associate play and playfulness with the young of a species. While the play of children,
kittens, puppies, and monkeys is familiar, animal play researchers have also observed playful behavior
in birds, turtles, fish and even some insects [26]. Despite its variability and remarkable social
complexity in the animal world, play seems to be more clearly identifiable as a distinct behavior in
animals than it does in humans. The message “this is play” [27] as well as the invitation to play, is
behaviourally clear in many animal species. When a puppy wants to play, it assumes a characteristic
pose, lowering on its front legs and wagging its tail. The invitation to play in young children is often
much more ambiguous, requiring subtle interpretation of social communication, as well as a certain
kind of emotional resiliency, as the following example of two boys meeting on a public playground for
the first time, illustrates:
Boy #1 (opening the conversation and for no apparent reason): You’re a baby
Boy #2: No, you’re a baby
Children 2014, 1 284

Boy #1: You’re a ridiculous baby

Boy #2: You’re a poop stick!
Boy #1: Do ya wanna play [28] ?
Human play is arguably more varied and complex than animal play. There are many forms of
childhood play and an equally diverse array of functions of human play as are emerging in the study of
animal play. It is this sheer diversity of types and functions of play that make it difficult to define.
Burghardt notes that the diversity “obscure[s] the commonalities of all forms of both human and
animal play” [29] (p. 341). Play defies definition and eludes categorization at every turn; the more we
try to pin it down, the more it moves—play is playful—it is a “hobgoblin” [23].
Traditional play classification schemes fall apart in the face of a sustained episode of young
children’s spontaneous free play, which is by nature combinatorial [30], and may exhibit multiple
forms, types and stages simultaneously. A recent observation of a group of five year old boys deeply
engaged together in block play confirms that children continually slip in and out of solitary, onlooker,
parallel, associative and cooperative play [31] as it suits their purposes, developing their own ideas and
seeking out the possibilities and fun that results when their playfulness intersects with the play
narratives and constructions of other players. Their play embraces aspects of object play, sensory-
motor play, construction play, symbolic play, and games with invented rules [32]. The disruptive
dimensions of play that are the subject of this paper—the rowdy, rambunctious, nonsensical, irrational,
elements of rough and tumble, and order and disorder, both physical and verbal—are characteristic of
spontaneous free play. These are better understood as dimensions and qualities of the spontaneous free
play experience rather than forms of play, dimensions that coexist simultaneously and fluidly, forming,
reforming, appearing and disappearing spontaneously, as any free play episode unfolds.
In early childhood education, children’s play is often described using some variation of the
characteristics of play identified by Rubin, Fein and Vandenberg in 1983 [33], based on a review of
psychological research on play. Play is variously described as voluntary, freely chosen and intrinsically
motivated; controlled and directed by the players; possessing a non-literal, “as if” quality; being free of
externally imposed rules, taking place ‘to the side of’ or ‘outside of’ the rules of ordinary life;
undertaken for no immediate goal or purpose, and focused on means rather than ends; characterized by
active engagement, deeply absorbing and satisfying for the players; and, generally speaking, producing
a positive, pleasurable affect for the player. While this definition of play is in many ways explanatory,
it does not capture essential elements and nuances of spontaneous free play from the perspective of the
player. For example, the idea that play is free of externally imposed rules suggests, quite rightly, that
children are able to make their own rules in play. What it does not adequately describe or explain is the
meaning of play and playing that pushes the edges, challenging and even breaking the rules of ordinary
life. The popular YouTube video [34] of a wild polar bear returning night after night to play with a
husky sled dog is a stunning example of play that breaks the rules of ordinary life. Young children
routinely challenge the rules in play, for example climbing up the slide rather than sliding down it is a
playful approach which breaks the rules of how young children are expected to use slides in most early
childhood care and education programs. The notion that children play to experience pleasure is also
limited; when children play they feel powerful. Jumping from a playground platform is a total body
encounter with gravity and an experience of the power of flying.
Children 2014, 1 285

Stuart Brown, a psychiatrist and play advocate, adds depth to our understanding of the nature of
spontaneous free play from the player’s perspective. He lists the following as properties of play:
“apparently purposeless, voluntary, inherent attraction, freedom from time, diminished consciousness
of self, improvisational potential, [and] continuation of desire” [35] (p. 17). The notion of a diminished
sense of self is echoed in Csikzentmihalyi’s discussion of play as the “flow experience par excellence”,
a “the merging of action and awareness” [36] (p. 37–38). A similar notion appears in Gadamer’s
philosophical treatise on play: “Play fulfills its purpose only if the player loses himself in play” [37]
(p.102). Along with the idea of being free from time in play, this notion may speak to the role of play
in reducing stress, by taking the player outside of him/herself, into another reality, even for brief
periods of time. The improvisational nature of play is thoroughly explored by Keith Sawyer in his
study of preschool pretend play [38], a quality of play may be linked to its capacity to enhance
adaptability and flexibility in response to rapid change.
Brown’s notion of the players’ “apparent” purposelessness in play and their desire to continue the
play is essential in understanding young children’s purposes in spontaneous free play, particularly as it
challenges the commonly held notion that spontaneous free play is goalless or purposeless. The players
do have one key purpose, and that is to keep the play going, particularly if it is accompanied by
pleasurable affect and feelings of power. Keeping the play going is the source of incredible creativity
and spontaneous innovation in play. We observe young children introducing surprising novelty into
story lines and character roles, in order to sustain the play or include more players or combine their
play narrative with another group. Sutton-Smith proposes that these “quirky twists” are characteristic
of play and may be connected to its potential to contribute to “adaptive variability” [25] (p. 229).
Spontaneous free play can only take place in an environment where spontaneity is possible. It must be
possible for play to “erupt” and take off in unusual directions, for metal pots to be hats in one moment
and drums in a marching band in the next. It is common in young children’s play that these
spontaneous narrative directions are non-linear, irrational and difficult for adults to follow. The
phenomenon of group glee [39] in toddlers and preschoolers is another spontaneously disruptive and
common feature of free play, one which produces a strong sense of social bonding and belonging. The
shared humor of very young children is not obvious to adults and other outsiders. For the player, these
experiences nourish feelings of subjective well-being in the here and now, and are now acknowledged
as some of the immediate social and emotional benefits of children’s spontaneous free play [4] (p. 114).
In an attempt to distinguish play from nonplay behaviour in animals, Burghardt [29] (pp. 345–346)
identifies several dimensions of play that shed further light on understanding spontaneous free play in
early childhood. He describes the voluntary nature of play as being intentional, which further
complicates our understanding of play as purposeless. Burghardt notes that the purposelessness of play
in the animal world is specific to immediate survival needs. The purposelessness that adults observe in
children’s play may not be shared by the child(ren). The players may be pursuing purposes that are
neither immediately obvious nor purposeful from an adult perspective. Burghardt goes on to describe
the exaggerated, novel, repetitive and incomplete behavioral patterns characteristic of animal play,
which are reminiscent of young children’s playful ways of moving. While an adult will walk
efficiently, a small child walking from the house to the car will adopt a gait that includes elements of
hopping, skipping, and galloping. This expressive and playful approach to movement has been aptly
described as “galumphing” [30], and is characterized by exaggeration, reordering and repetition of
Children 2014, 1 286

sequences of behaviour. Spontaneous free play frequently involves intentional, systematic and novel
complication of behavioural patterns, building a combinatorial freedom and flexibility in the
behavioural repertoire, arguably rendering both animals and humans more adaptable [40].
The following description of free play introduces the notion that some of the more disruptive
qualities of play may be defining features of the spontaneous free play experience from the players’
perspective, whose main purpose in play quickly becomes to keep playing.
In spite of the complexity and diversity of play behaviour, there is general agreement by specialists
in the field that play is controlled by children rather than by adults, and that it is undertaken for its own
sake and not for prescribed purposes. The term “free play” is often used to distinguish this from
organized recreational and learning activities, which also have important roles in child development.
However, the characteristics of free play—control, uncertainty, flexibility, novelty, and
non-productivity—are what produce a high degree of pleasure and, simultaneously, the incentive to
continue to play [41] (p. 25). These qualities of free play produce the affect that the player is seeking,
and which have the potential to contribute positively to children’s health and sense of well-being. They
are also the qualities that lead to play that is frequently suppressed by adults because it tends to be
disruptive [4] (p. 17). Interestingly, these are also the qualities of animal play that are understood to
contribute to its adaptive value [42].
Children value play. It is significant in their lives. The awareness that children may have purposes
in their spontaneous free play that are neither readily apparent, nor important to adults, is key to
understanding the potential of play to contribute to the subjective experience of well-being in
childhood. A critical difference between spontaneous free play and other play based approaches lies in
the participation of the adult. Children make a very clear distinction about what is and is not play based
on how adults participate [43]. In spontaneous free play, the locus of control remains with the players.
Adult efforts to guide and direct play—either out of necessity or in the service of a developmental or
learning agenda—generally interrupt the flow of the play for the player(s). The idea that the benefits of
play accrue most directly from play where the frame is both set and sustained by the players
themselves presents significant challenges to adult sensibilities and to the expectations of early
childhood educators. For children, play must be spontaneous free play in order to be experienced as
play. This means it is controlled and directed by children, even when adults are playing. Other kinds of
play based approaches are neither experienced as play by children, nor defined by them this way.

2.2. Promoting Social and Emotional Health: Making a Case for Disruptive, Disorderly, Dizzy Play

A theoretical explanation of what exactly is important about play, how its associated benefits are
realized and what dimensions of play produce which benefits is almost as difficult as defining it. There
is an extraordinary array of developmental and learning benefits that are associated with young
children’s play, but the evidence linking these benefits to play remains largely correlational [44]. The
benefits of animal play are most often linked with the rehearsal of behaviours that serve no immediate
survival purpose, but, in the words of Karl Groos “will later be essential to life” [45]. Recent evidence
from neuroscience suggests that play may have more important social, emotional, and affective
benefits in the immediate context of living than were previously understood [4] (p. 15). As Pellis et al.
note, [46] (p. 279), the multifunctional nature of play in animals and humans contributes to the
Children 2014, 1 287

difficulty in articulating a coherent explanatory theory as to its adaptive value. Nonetheless,

researchers and play theorists alike maintain that there must be some adaptive value to play, given its
pervasiveness, its ubiquity and its evolutionary resilience.
This section of the paper looks specifically at the potential of play to contribute to social and
emotional health in early childhood, building a case for the idea that the power of play to make us
resilient, flexible, and strong—emotionally, socially, physically, intellectually, and perhaps
spiritually—may lie in its propensity to invert and subvert the order of things. In particular, it is argued
that those dimensions of young children’s spontaneous free play and playfulness that experiment with
ordering, disordering, and reordering, rough and tumble, and all forms of dizzy, chaotic, nonsense play
may provide critical opportunities for children to experience a sense of social belonging, well-being
and participation in the culture of childhood, as well as to develop social and emotional awareness,
control and resilience. Play helps children learn to “roll with the punches” of everyday life [42,47], and
to experience the ongoing social and emotional balancing of self that is fundamental to successful
participation in social life.
The similarities between health promotion action strategies—strengthening social relationships,
personal control and participation [24] and the characteristics of spontaneous free play, support the
notion that play can be understood as a contributing factor to health in its broadest sense. Participation
in the peer culture of play is foundational to the child’s sense of well-being and belonging in
childhood; play creates the possibility of control, motivating and challenging the player to explore the
dimensions of their own agency, and thereby experiencing the emotional reality, the thrill, and the risk
of making decisions, in an environment that is buffered from the real consequences of those decisions.
Play is behavior in the “simulative mode” [48]. In a recent analysis of the decline of free play in
childhood, Peter Gray reviews the evidence linking the loss of a sense of personal control and the lack
of social connectedness to the increasing incidence of depression and anxiety in children and young
adults [12] (p. 449). These are critical dimensions of health promotion action strategies and also key
features of spontaneous free play. Play promotes health in early childhood.
The impact of vigorously active spontaneous free play on young children’s physical health—on
their strength, coordination, spatial awareness and balance—is readily observable. Less obvious, but
now quite compelling, is the thought that this same kind of playful exploration of balance and
balancing that characterizes so much of young children’s physical play, might also be going on in
relationship to the emotional realities and social relationships that are so much a part of the play
material of childhood, and that there might be similar benefits to emotional resilience, social
awareness, the coordination of self with others [49], and the ability to maintain social and emotional
equilibrium when things are changing.

2.2.1. Spontaneous Free Play Alleviates Stress

Young children use play to cope with stress in situations of extreme trauma as well as everyday
events. There is considerable concern with the impact of stress and adversity in early childhood on the
developing brain, primarily with the profound impact that extreme adversity or toxic stress in early
childhood (resulting from violence, neglect, or abuse), has on life-long physical as well as mental health
[17]. The evidence is suggesting that the developing brain needs just the right amount of the right kind
Children 2014, 1 288

of stress; there is concern about the impact of removing all stress from children’s lives, as well as the
supports that should be in place for young children to cope with every day or tolerable stress, for
example, with the stress of moving to a new home, or beginning school. There is some common sense
in the notion that playing, similar to other forms of recreation, alleviates stress.
The player’s experience of play is often associated with freedom. Play is freeing; it frees us
temporarily from the cares and stresses of everyday life. As noted previously, and importantly, play is
a place where the player feels in control of the world, even for a brief time. It is a hopeful place. Play is
about possibility, and for a time, anything can be possible in play. Sutton Smith asserts that the
opposite of play is depression [25] (p. 198). Gadamer argues that play is experienced by the player as
being effortless and without strain [37] (p.105); the result, he claims, is relaxation. The common sense
is that play helps the player to relax, which can be beneficial in coping with stress. The notion of
playfulness is important to consider, in addition to play. As illustrated in the fable of the oak and
willow, the flexibility that characterizes playfulness can also be adaptive.
However, the relationship between play and stress and how each impacts the other appears to be
much more complex than common sense would have it, and like other aspects of play, is informed by
multiple disciplinary perspectives. Animal neuroscience [50] is enhancing our understanding of the
relationships between stress, adversity, brain development and play. Play is impacted by stress, i.e.,
situations of anxiety and threat reduce play and playfulness, but play also appears to be resilient to
stress, with some evidence that some stress may facilitate play [29]. The research on play in
psychotherapy reveals its considerable power as a cathartic and expressive outlet for young children
who are coping with overwhelming, confusing, traumatic emotions and life events. In play therapy,
children replay and/or play out fearful or stressful situations, often repeatedly, in order to gain control
over the emotions. Play has been used effectively to help children cope with hospital stays [51] and
surgery, as well as to cope with the aftermath of natural disasters [52].
Young children frequently use play to work through everyday stresses and anxieties. Finding out
that daddy is going away for a few days, that grandma is picking you up today instead of Mom, or that
your brother will not be coming to child care today because he is sick, are common examples of the
everyday stresses that young children gain emotional control of through play. Interestingly, there is
some research that suggests that children use solitary play to work through these emotions more often
than social play, and that this kind of play can be quite repetitive [53]. Noticing the child’s reality and
protecting the time and space needed for this kind of play in a busy early childhood program can be
challenging. There is a tendency to intervene in play that is repetitive, without first asking what the
purpose of the repetition might be. The repetitiveness of this kind of play is arguably linked to
establishing a sense of predictability and control. A recent play scenario of a toddler whose father was
going away for a few days was captured on video and serves as an interesting example of the everyday
potential of play to help children cope with stress and work through normal anxieties. Shortly after her
father dropped her off at child care, the child sat down to play at a dollhouse. She played by herself,
quite contentedly, inventing conversations between the family figures for well over 15 minutes, which
many might consider an unusual length of time for a child of this age. What is audible on the video is
her repetition of the phrase “You ok? You ok?” A follow-up conversation with the child care educator
confirms that this was part of the conversation she had with her father at drop off. The child is actively
Children 2014, 1 289

seeking to balance her emotional reality through the expressive medium of play. After Geertz, she is
using play to tell herself a story about herself [54] (p. 674).

2.2.2. The Social and Emotional Value of Disruptive, Disorderly, Dizzy Play

Play works in fundamentally paradoxical ways, and it is not always what it seems. Young children
have a preponderance for dizzy play, most obvious in their persistent pursuit of vertigo—spinning,
whirling, swiveling, twirling, somersaulting and tumbling—turning the world upside down and inside
out, and creating considerable tumult in the process. Callois called the pursuit of vertigo in play ilinx,
describing it as one of the four major categories of play, in which the player “gratifies the desire to
temporarily destroy his bodily equilibrium, escape the tyranny of his ordinary perception, and provoke
the abdication of consciousness” [55] (p. 44). Physically, this kind of play results in an increased sense
of spatial awareness, vestibular and proprioceptor strength, physical coordination and balance. What is
fascinating is that balance is strengthened through the deliberate exploration and experience of
imbalance. According to Sutton-Smith, it is the player’s deliberate intent to create and experience this
imbalance, to create nonsense out of sense, not necessarily to resolve the opposition, rather in an effort to
experience it fully [56]. The deliberateness of children’s intent is echoed in the recent work of Lester and
Russell on players’ exploration of risk in play as the deliberate creation of uncertainty [57] (p. 8).
Locomotor-rotational play involving jumping, leaping, twisting, swinging and running is common
in the play of many animal species [29] (p. 340). Spinka et al. interpret the function of this kind of play
as “training for the unexpected” [42], creating novel behavioural patterns and rehearsing the flexibility
of response needed in a rapidly changing environment. While it is also common in young children, it is
not generally regarded as beneficial or significant. There are varying levels of adult tolerance for the
tumult that is created by dizzy play or chaotic play [58], particularly in indoor environments. Young
children’s dizzy play also includes elements of verbal nonsense (which may be rude as well as
inappropriate), spontaneous fantasy, and group glee, mentioned previously. These kinds of play are
often shut down or only allowed in the outdoor environment.
Gadamer [37] (p. 106), speaks to the freedom of decision-making that characterizes play for the
player and to playing as the exercise of free impulse, a notion that contrasts with emerging evidence in
neuroscience about the role of play in refining the executive functions in the prefrontal cortex of the
brain, and specifically, with our ability to control impulses [59]. Ironically, it is through the experience
of exercising free impulse in play that young children improve impulse control. One of the durable
insights from the research on rough and tumble playfighting is that it does not tend to lead to real
fighting [44]. It is fascinating that play that looks aggressive actually builds social empathy and
emotional self-control, and may prevent the development of aggression [60]. Studies of rough and
tumble play in young children reveal that it is an expression of caring and friendship [61]. It is
tempting to theorise that play works by providing an experience of the opposite, however this does not
explain its generative power. In play, the players explore the dynamic space—the play—between order
and disorder, reordering and rebalancing themselves in relationship to the experience and to other
players, finding just the right balance in the moment. Sometimes order becomes disorder; sometimes
disorder becomes a new order. As Sutton-Smith points out, order and disorder in play are not opposites;
they are ambiguities [25]. The power of play is in the moment and the ongoing resolution of imbalance
Children 2014, 1 290

is dynamic, unique to the player(s) and often fleeting and momentary. A crawling infant playing with a
ball is motivated by its unpredictability and rewarded by its responsiveness. The infant experiences a
sense of agency, power and influence, simultaneously with unpredictability, uncertainty and lack of
control of the movement of the ball. The result is fun.
It is significant that play is behavior in the “simulative mode” [48], separated from its real
consequences. Playing creates an intense and immediate emotional reality, one that provides an
opportunity for the player(s) to experience and respond to the real feeling of terror for example,
without the reality of a predatory threat. This dimension of play is observable in mother-infant play
across species, where, as Jerome Bruner observes “the mother seems able to bring the young, so to
speak, to the edge of terror” [62] (p. 48). This quality of play makes it safe to take a chance: “When we
play, we prod the world—and ourselves—to discover our limits. We willfully put ourselves in
precarious situations so that we can experience the emotions that attend success and failure, danger and
security. In so doing, we see more clearly the spectrum of our own possibilities” [63] (p. 1).
The experience of joy and freedom and thrill that many of us associate with our memories of
childhood play are the possibilities that draw children into play, possibilities that frequently involve
disorderly, disruptive elements of risk, uncertainty and unpredictability—social and emotional, as well
as physical. The player is taking a chance that the risk might connect them to the world and others in
new ways, and when it does, the player feels powerful. The understanding emerging from neuroscience
that “playing is a way of building and shaping the emotion, motivation and reward regions of the brain” [4]
(p. 15) resonates.
There is a body of knowledge coalescing around the social and emotional value of the rough and
tumble dimensions of spontaneous free play. Rough and tumble play is common in children,
adolescents and across many animal species. While there is now a substantive body of evidence pointing
to the benefits of playful aggression in young children [64], it remains one of the most challenging kinds
of play to support in group environments. Many do not recognize that rough and tumble playfighting is
social play. Gender does appear to play a role; rough and tumble playfighting is more common amongst
boys than girls and it is more difficult for women (particularly women who have not experienced rough
and tumble play themselves) to distinguish this kind of play from aggression [65]. Research with
animals, as well as children, confirms that the signs and behavioural action patterns of rough and tumble
playfighting are distinct and recognizable. Maintaining reciprocity is essential and this requires that
players exercise self-restraint and engage in continual role reversals and self-handicapping actions.
Players actively seek to balance the relationship in order to keep the play going.
The recent work of Pellis et al. [46,49,60,66] on rough and tumble play in rats adds compelling new
dimensions to our understanding of this pervasive form of play. Their close and systematic observation
of rough and tumble playfighting in juvenile male rats, accompanied by neuroscientific analysis of its
impact on the brain, reveals that in rats, the experience of peer to peer play fighting in the juvenile
period “can lead to organizational changes in the brain, especially in those areas involved in social
behavior” [49] (p. 95). They demonstrate that rats deprived of play fighting in the juvenile period
display significant deficits in social competence as adults. They conclude that the significant
contribution of rough and tumble play fighting to the normal social development of juvenile rats is the
opportunity it provides for rats to “co-ordinate their movements” with a peer. One of the remarkable
insights from this research is what it reveals of the subtlety and complexity of the social communication
Children 2014, 1 291

and social cues that characterize rough and tumble play. Recently, when confronted with the ambiguity
and subtlety of the social communication in rough and tumble play, young children in our child care
lab school agreed that “stop—for real” meant that the play was going too far, while “stop” was
considered necessary to the playful exchange and did not indicate that you really wanted to stop
playing [67]. This kind of nuanced co-ordination of self with others is, in some sense, the basis of
participation in social life. That children might learn to do this through full body contact with others in
what may appear to be aggressive behaviour, is a significant insight.
Pellis and Pellis [49] (p. 97) argue that there is now sufficient evidence of continuity between
playfighting in human and non-human animals to support the notion that rough and tumble play may
promote the development of social competence in children. This finding confirms earlier research with
children which established a correlation between social competence and children who frequently
engage in rough and tumble play [68]. There is growing interest in looking at the implications of these
findings for early childhood care and education [69], and new research is emerging. A recent study of
rough and tumble play in Norwegian preschools [70] builds on the notion of affordances in the
environment—physical, social, and relational affordances—that invite or inhibit, condone or prohibit
rough and tumble play. Freeman and Brown argue that it is time to reconceptualize rough and tumble
play in early childhood education, to “ban the banning,” and intentionally welcome consensual rough and
tumble play [71] (p. 230).
To summarize, in early childhood, spontaneous free play promotes social and emotional health and
a subjective sense of control, agency, well-being and belonging—in the here and now. Burdette et al.
provide an alternative conceptual framework for describing the immediate benefits of spontaneous free
play in health, arguing that spontaneous free play contributes to attention (self-control), affiliation
(friendship), and affect (happiness) [19]. The improvisational nature of spontaneous free play builds
flexibility and resilience in emotional and social responses, contributing to adaptability in the moment.
The simulated, intense and immediate reality of play provides a unique vantage point from which
children can explore the social and emotional world, one that invites them to appreciate and experience
serendipitous joy, as well as become comfortable with unpredictability and uncertainty. The
experience of rewarding, successful and satisfying participation in social play with friends, initiated,
directed and sustained by young children themselves, and including the disruptive, rambunctious
rowdy dimensions of full body social play contributes to a robust and resilient sense of social
connectedness that is essential to long term physical and mental health.

3. Spontaneous Free Play in Early Childhood Care and Education

Spontaneous free play promotes social and emotional health in early childhood. There is an urgent
challenge before us in early childhood care and education to clearly identify and then consistently
create the conditions that allow spontaneous free play to flourish in early childhood care and education
programs. What enhances spontaneous free play? As Kalliala notes:
Supporting children’s play is more active than simply saying you believe that it is
important. When children’s play culture is taken seriously, the conditions which make it
flourish are carefully created. Children’s play culture does not just happen naturally. Play
Children 2014, 1 292

needs time and space. It needs mental and material stimulation to be offered in abundance
[72] (p. 139).
Group settings in early childhood may offer young children new opportunities to explore and
develop spontaneous free play, however they present significant challenges. The spontaneity of
spontaneous free play is critical to its health benefits, as is the control of the play by the players. Is it
possible to support spontaneity in free play in a formal early childhood environment, bound as it is by
regulations, occupational and accreditation standards, and early learning outcomes? How do early
childhood educators plan for spontaneous free play? How do we create the conditions that make it
possible for three-year-olds to control and direct their own play? Is a pedagogy of play possible without
destroying play [73]? These are critical questions right now in early childhood pedagogy.
Notions of child-centred care and education, the centrality of play and “learning through play” have
become deeply embedded in the philosophical foundation and professional practice of early childhood
care and education. Based in developmental science, play is understood to be essential to development,
and to have universal and naturally occurring benefits, illustrating what play scholars have labelled as
the “play ethos” [3,25]. This theoretical foundation is criticized in early childhood pedagogy for its
tendency to romanticize all play as innocent, pure, and positive, ignoring or shutting down common
play experiences that explore more complex and problematic dimensions of our humanity, like social
power, gender roles, and racial diversity [74–77]. Many early childhood scholars argue that it is time to
reflect more critically on the taken-for-granted approaches to play that have evolved in early childhood
care and education, defining an intentional pedagogy of play that considers these complex issues and
clearly articulates the rationale for a continued pedagogical focus on spontaneous free play, as well as the
conditions that support and enhance it in formal early childhood care and education programs [78–80].
What does it look like when early childhood educators focus intentionally on providing
opportunities for children to play on their own terms and for their own purposes? How does it change
the role of the educator? What conditions create the possibility of extended episodes of spontaneous
free play, controlled and directed by young children? With these questions in mind, I have been
following the work of Anne and Brittany, two early childhood educators in a university child care
laboratory school, whose collaborative focus over the past several years has been to understand the
meaning of the child as a citizen, with a right to play for their own purposes. Each has become deeply
involved in reflecting on the meaning of play from the perspective of the young child. Their work
draws on new thinking in early childhood pedagogy, connected to the image of the child as a strong,
resourceful, capable learner and citizen, and the role of the early childhood educator as a co-learner
and co-researcher alongside children and families, in a democratic play and learning community [81].
Following is a preliminary discussion of the possibilities that emerge when educators critically
reconsider taken-for-granted practices of provisioning the environment for indoor play, refocussing their
participation on co-creating the relational space and time for spontaneous free play alongside children.

3.1. Towards a Pedagogy of “Organized Chaos”

The notion of play as a pedagogy of organized chaos is borrowed from Somerville and Green’s
study of outdoor learning in primary schools in socio-economically disadvantaged rural communities
in Australia [82]. Building on the ideas of ecological learning and place-based education, as well as
Children 2014, 1 293

other critical pedagogies, the authors conceptualize that deep ecological learning results from a
pedagogy of organized chaos, one that calls upon the educator to be “responsibly uncertain,” and
“willing to risk the unknown.” The experiences that inform the pedagogy of organized chaos were
founded on children’s “immense pleasure with an impromptu, chaotic and random ‘jungle’ adventure,”
in the outdoors, where a “sense of imagination and impulsiveness that enables a liberating interaction
with the more wild aspects of a school ground landscape” (p. 22) led to rich pedagogical encounters.
Though these ideas are developed in relationship to the exploration of a natural outdoor learning
environment, they resonate both with the characteristics of spontaneous free play and its potentially
disruptive, chaotic elements, and with the stories of practice that follow. Thinking about play as a
pedagogy of organized chaos may open up new possibilities for honoring children’s purposes in play
and their unique ways of organizing themselves in play.

3.1.1. Citizenship and Community are Critical Conditions for Spontaneous Free Play

Spontaneous free play does not just happen; it thrives when children have strong and trusting
relationships with one another. Based on her multiyear research on children’s citizenship in early
childhood programs [83] and her abiding belief in the value and capacity of children to control their
own play, Anne speaks about notions of citizenship and community as critical conditions for
spontaneous free play to flourish. The environment for play is much more than a physical reality for
children. There is a cultural environment that supports young children’s play, one that requires
intentional work on the part of early childhood educators and that takes time to develop in group
settings. Anne describes her role in providing rich materials and resources for children’s play, “firing
up their imaginations” with stories and new information. The group of children she works with this
year have been fascinated by superhero play; after careful thought, she brought in a children’s story
book about Achilles to stimulate children’s thinking about superheroes in new ways, beyond their
experience with TV and movies. Anne puts a lot of energy into building a repertoire of social strategies
with children, which allow them to enter and leave play, and to participate actively. Anne and Brittany
emphasize the importance of working with children to create an environment of strong social
relationships, where each child can trust that their ideas will be taken seriously by the group. Taking
the time to build trusting social relationships in each group of children enhances the capacity of young
children to engage deeply in extended and continuing episodes of spontaneous free play that they can
control and direct independently. Anne emphasizes that they must be able to trust one another before
they can play together. Creating a community that values each child as a citizen requires careful
listening on the part of the educators and ongoing attunement to how children are negotiating their
friendships and play relationships with one another. It does not mean that all children have to play
together all the time. And it is not always smooth.
Both Anne and Brittany maintain that there is a subculture of play that emerges and develops in
each group of children. In contrast to a formal school environment, where children move up the grades
as a cohort, Brittany comments that in child care “things linger.” On average children will spend three
years in a preschool room, entering as three-year-olds and leaving as five-year-olds. Children learn to
play from other children; multiage groupings support spontaneous free play by feeding the peer to peer
transmission of play culture. Childcare programs create the possibility of multiage play. Recent
Children 2014, 1 294

experimentation at the lab school involved toddlers joining the preschool group for several hours each
day. This reinforced the educators’ understanding of the possibilities of multiage groupings to support
spontaneous free play, not only stimulating the toddlers’ sociodramatic play in new ways, but also
reminding the preschoolers of the pleasure they experienced in sensory play as toddlers [83] (p. 27).
As the sense of place and belonging in community is strengthened, so too are the opportunities for rich
and varied spontaneous free play experiences.

3.1.2. Co-Creating Places for Play

Both Brittany and Anne maintain that the spaces and places for play must be co-created by the
children, and further, that the building and transforming of the space is continual, evolving and
changing along with the play. Brittany’s pedagogical teacher research over the past year has been
focused on understanding how preschool children create a sense of place through their play and how
this sense of place in turn influences their play. Through critical reflection on ongoing documentation
of children’s play, Brittany observed a common story line in all of the children’s play narratives early
in the year. Whether the play characters were dinosaurs or meerkats or superheroes or human beings,
the stories were always about family relationships, and the action primarily centred on going places—
for example, to and from child care, or to and from the grocery store—common experiences in
children’s everyday lives that they were playing and replaying together, creating shared meaning. This
is another example of Geertz’ notion that play is a “story that the players tell themselves about
themselves” [54] (p. 674).
After reflecting on this observation with a faculty mentor in an effort to identify possibilities for
extending this play, an interesting idea emerged, one that sustained a series of connected play
experiences over several months. The idea was to build and add a simple wooden door frame to the
playroom, thinking that it might support the comings and goings of children’s play narratives. The
doorway has been in the playroom for several months now. Initially, the children did not do much with it,
but over time, they began to use it intentionally, not just in the literal sense of defining their movement
from one place to another, but also as a portal to another world and even to another identity. The
doorway was draped with fabric that began to have specific meanings for this group of children. For
example, when children drape the doorway with sparkly material, they use it to enter a fantasy world.
The practice in many early childhood programs has been to organize the environment for
spontaneous free play by providing play centres, for example a house play centre, a dress up centre, a
block play area, a quiet play area, and a gross motor play area—provisioned with suitable loose parts,
play props and other materials. Although this organization of the environment does offer free play
opportunities for children, it also constrains the serendipitous aspects of spontaneous free play, which
tends to combine multiple forms and narratives simultaneously. Structuring spontaneous free play in
these ways communicates specific messages to children about what to play—in the house centre
children are expected to engage in dramatic or sociodramatic family role play—and how to play—
rough and tumble play is not acceptable in the house centre; it belongs in the gross motor play area.
Through critical reflection on how these environments both invite and limit spontaneous free play,
Brittany and Anne have begun to explore a different organization of space, one that values and invites
continual transformation. Brittany’s immediate observation was that in this kind of environment
Children 2014, 1 295

children begin to use the whole room to develop and sustain their play. It means that children can
negotiate the use of space for different and perhaps unusual purposes. For example, recent family play
led to the creation of a sleeping area in the entrance to the playroom. Typically, this would be
restricted to the house corner.
These are preliminary reflections. Further theoretical insight on co-creating the space for play with
young children may lie in Russell’s recent writing on “co-producing” the space for play in adventure
playgrounds [84], Sawyer’s study of the “polyphony” of play that unfolds in an early childhood
playroom [38], and Marg Sellers’ fascinating Deleuzian interpretation of the multiple and intersecting
“lines of flight” that emerge in children’s spontaneous free play [85]. As Anne describes it, children
begin to “see possibilities” in one another’s play and they actively seek to connect their play narratives,
sometimes in very creative ways. Sometimes these intersections emerge as a result of a social problem,
for example, the need to share space or materials with one another. Anne and Brittany gave me
numerous example of this kind of intersecting play—one was about a group of children playing out a
narrative of being a film crew, who came upon a group of players who were playing at being cooks
and invited themselves for lunch, giving flight to a more elaborate play narrative.
Young children’s spontaneously occurring play sometimes does not look like much to an adult—it
is often repetitive and the narrative sequence is not particularly logical—which makes it difficult to
know when it is meaningful to participate. Brittany reflects on the times when the multiple intersecting
episodes of spontaneous free play taking place simultaneously in the whole room have become chaotic
creating “uncertainty” and “unknowing,” for her as an educator. She has found it sometimes difficult to
follow the storyline even when she is listening closely. She can see when it makes sense to the
children, but it is not always understandable to her. Anne says we have to trust children to play. We
have to wait and listen and try not to interrupt. Lester et al. recently proposed that we rethink the role
of the participant observer in children’s play, becoming instead an “observant participant” [86] (p. 8).
The notion of an observant participant makes clear the impossibility of observing without influencing,
drawing attention to the idea that young children’s play spaces are always and inevitably co-produced,
and to some degree, controlled by adults. The notion of the observant participant also suggests
observing carefully before participating more actively, intentionally seeking a deeper understanding of
the meaning of the play for the player before interrupting or redirecting it. This shift in role may open
up a legitimate space for recognizing and valuing the disruptive dimensions of children’s play in early
childhood programs.

3.1.3. Honoring Children’s Purposes: Keeping the Play Going

Even very young children have a right to play for their own purposes. Spontaneous free play is
enhanced when adults actively seek to understand, acknowledge and respect children’s purposes in
play and participate intentionally in ways that keep the play going. Brittany speaks to the importance
of children being free to choose an identity in play. In order to support spontaneous free play, she has
been exploring the possibilities of honoring that identity though the transitions and routines of the day,
and not just during free play time. If a child arrives in the morning announcing that he/she is Batman,
she honors this identity at the lunch table and when the child wants to wear a cape outdoors.
Children 2014, 1 296

Many of the family play narratives in Brittany’s playroom this year revolved around animal
families. In particular, one group of children spent several weeks returning frequently to a pretend play
scenario where they became kittens, rolling around on the floor with one another, and rubbing up
against the legs of the child care educators, looking to be stroked and petted. This play involved boys
and girls in repetitive episodes of very gentle, full body rough and tumble floor play, similar to the
gamboling play of kittens. The mama cat appropriated a box of Q-Tips from the art table nearby,
which spontaneously became the kitty food. She brought bowls from the house play corner to fill with
the Q-Tip food, and the kittens pretended to eat the food by picking up the Q-Tips with their teeth and
dropping them back in the bowl. An issue arose for Brittany when the children began to pick up Q-
Tips from one another’s bowls. Thinking quickly on her feet, she asked if anyone thought the kittens
might get sick from sharing their food in this way. A response came immediately and spontaneously
from one of the players, who suggested to all the others that the kittens could eat with their feet instead
of their mouths. And the play continued, albeit with a new and “quirky twist” [25] on kitten behavior.
What mattered to the children was finding a way to keep the play going. Brittany’s recognition of this
purpose and children’s ongoing enjoyment of their play is significant. Much of her reflection this year
was about situations like this one, where the participation of the adult can easily interrupt the rhythm
and flow of the play, breaking the play frame. In this case she participated as a player might,
contributing her thought within the metacommunicative structure of spontaneous free play, where
children slip in and out of character roles to shape and direct the ongoing action.

4. Conclusions

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child calls upon us, individually and collectively, to honor
and uphold the image of the child as a participating and contributing citizen, with a right to play, a
right “that is most distinctly children’s” and that “defines, almost, the right to be a child” [4] (p. 8).
There is good evidence now to support the notion that spontaneous free play contributes positively to
mental as well as physical health in early childhood. These benefits are linked to spontaneous free play
that is controlled and directed by children themselves; to critical new understanding of the role of
rough and tumble play in the development of healthy social relationships; to the capacity of sustained
involvement in socio dramatic play to enhance emotional and social self-control; and to the
significance of the disruptive dimensions of spontaneous free play in enhancing children’s flexibility
and adaptability in response to change and unpredictability. This kind of play is often shut down by
adults who experience it as noisy, messy, silly, chaotic, risky, uncivilized, dangerous and annoying.
Creating and sustaining the conditions for spontaneous free play in the increasingly formalized
environments in which early experience unfolds presents significant challenges for early childhood
educators. It is essential that we honor children’s purposes in play, and reflect critically on
taken-for-granted assumptions and practices in provisioning indoor as well as outdoor play environments
for young children in early childhood care and education. Increased time in peer groups at a young age
may also create new possibilities for spontaneous free play in early childhood. Ensuring young
children’s right to play will take intentional effort on the part of early childhood educators and
families, with the support of and policy makers and allied professionals.
Children 2014, 1 297


I am indebted to my conversations with Anne Grove and Brittany Atkinson, Early Childhood
Educators, MacEwan University Child Care Lab School, in developing the final section of the paper.
Their intentional and deeply thoughtful reflection on the relational time and space for spontaneous free
play inspires hope for the possibilities that group early learning and care might have for children’s
play. I also acknowledge the essential contribution of the children whose play stories are shared here.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


1. Keating, D.P.; Hertzman, C. Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations: Social, Biological
and Educational Dynamics; Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
2. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Establishing a Level Foundation for Life:
Mental Health begins in Early Childhood: Working paper 6; Centre on the Developing Child at
Harvard University: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
3. Smith, P.K. Children and Play; Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2010.
4. Lester, S.; Russell, W. Play for a Change. Play, Policy and Practice: A Review of Contemporary
Perspectives; Play England: London, UK, 2008.
5. United Nations Human Rights. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Avaliable
online: http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (accessed on 22 September 2014).
6. Hewes, J. The value of play in early learning: Towards a pedagogy. In Several Perspectives on
Childrenʼs Play: Scientific Reflections for Practitioners; Jambor, T., VanGils, J., Eds.;
Garant: Antwerp, Belgium, 2007; pp. 119–132.
7. Unicef Innocenti Research Centre. The Child Care Transition: A League Table of Early
Childhood Education and Care in Economically Advanced Countries; Unicef: Florence, Italy,
8. Wenner, M. The serious need for play. Sci. Am. Mind 2009, 20, 22–29.
9. Ginsburg, K. The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining
strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics 2007, 119, 182–191.
10. Miller, E.; Almon, J. Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School; Alliance
for Childhood: College Park, MD, USA, 2009.
11. Henig, R.M. Taking play seriously. Avaliable online: www.whywaldorfworks.org/03_newsevents/
documents/takingplayseriously.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2014).
12. Gray, P. The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. Am. J. Play
2011, 3, 443–463.
13. Modern life leads to more depression among children. Avaliable online: http://www.telegraph.co.
uk/news/1528639/Modern-life-leads-to-more-depression-among-children.html (accessed on 22
August 2014).
14. Rosin, H. The overprotected kid. Avaliable online: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/
2014/03/hey-parents-leave-those-kids-alone/358631/ (accessed on 22 August 2014).
Children 2014, 1 298

15. McCain, M.N.; Mustard, F. Reversing the Real Brain Drain: The Early Years Study; Canadian
Insitute for Advanced Research: Toronto, Canada, 1999.
16. Diamond, A. Interrelated and interdependent. Dev. Sci. 2007, 10, 152–158.
17. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture
of the Developing Brain: Working Paper 3; Center on the Developing Child at Harvard
University: Boston, MA, USA, 2014.
18. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Starting Strong II: Early
Childhood Education and Care. Final Report of the Thematic Review of Early Childhood
Education and Care; OECD: Paris, France, 2006.
19. Burdette, H.L.; Whitaker, R.C. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness
and fatness to attention, affiliation and affect. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2005, 159, 46–50.
20. Alexander, S.A.; Frohlich, K.L.; Fusco, C. Playing for health? Revisiting health promotion to
examine the emerging public health position on children’s play. Health Promot. Int. 2012, 29, 155–
21. Rogers, S. The pedagogization of play in early childhood. In Varied Perspectives on Play and
Learning: Theory and Research on Early Years Education; Lillemyr, O.F., Dockett, S., Perry, B.,
Eds.; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2013.
22. Hodgkin, R.; Newell, P. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
United Nations Childrenʼs Fund (UNICEF): Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
23. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture; The Beacon Press: Boston,
MA, USA, 1950.
24. World Health Organization. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland,
25. Sutton-Smith, B. The Ambiguity of Play; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997.
26. Burghardt, G.M. The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2005.
27. Bateson, G. A theory of play and fantasy. In Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution; Bruner,
J.S., Sylva, K., Jolly, A., Eds.; Viking Penguin Inc: New York, NY, USA, 1976; pp. 119–129.
28. Hewes, J. Early Learning and Child Care, Faculty of Health and Community Studies, MacEwan
University, Edmonton AB T5J4P2, Canada. Play anecdote from parent, as recalled by child care
educator. Personal communication, 2010.
29. Burghardt, G.M. The comparative reach of play and brain: Perspective, evidence, and
implications. Am. J. Play 2010, 2, 338–356.
30. Miller, S. Ends, means and galumphing: Some leitmotifs of play. Am. Anthropol. 1973, 75, 87–98.
31. Parten, M. Social participation among preschool children. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1932, 27, 243–
32. Piaget, J. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood; Routledge: London, UK, 1951.
33. Rubin, K.H.; Fein, G.G.; Vanderberg, B. Play. In Handbook of Child Psychology;
Hetherington, E.M., Ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1983; Volume 4, pp. 693–774.
34. A Talk by Stuart Brown. On Being with Krista Tippett. Avaliable online: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=iHj82otCi7U (accessed on 22 September 2014).
35. Brown, S. Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination and Invigorates the Soul;
Avery/Penguin Group: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
36. Csikzentmihalyi, M. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1975.
Children 2014, 1 299

37. Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method, 2nd revised ed.; The Continuum Publishing Company: New
York, NY, USA, 1994.
38. Sawyer, R.K. Pretend Play as Improvisation: Conversation in the Preschool Classroom;
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1997.
39. Sherman, L.W. An ecological study of glee in small groups of preschool children. Child Dev.
1975, 46, 53–61.
40. Miller, S.N. The playful, the crazy, and the nature of pretnse. Rice Univ. Stud. 1974, 60, 31–51.
41. Fronczek, V. Article 31: A “forgotten right of the UNCRC”. Realising Rights Young Child. Progr.
Chall. Early Child. Matters 2009, 113, 24–28.
42. Spinka, M.; Newberry, R.C.; Bekoff, M. Mammalian play: Training for the unexpected. Q. Rev. Biol.
2001, 76, 141–168.
43. Howard, J.; Jenvey, V.; Hill, C. Children’s categorization of play and learning based on social
context. Early Child Dev. Care 2006, 176, 379–393.
44. Smith, P.K.; Pellegrini, A. Learning through play. In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood
Development (online); Tremblay, R.E., Boivin, M., Peters, R., Eds.; Centre of Excellence for
Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Childhood
Development: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2013; pp. 1–6.
45. Groos, K. The Play of Animals; D. Appleton and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1898.
46. Pellis, S.M.; Pellis, V.; Bell, H.C. The function of play in the development of the social brain.
Am. J. Play 2010, 2, 278–296.
47. Siviy, S.M. Neurobiological substrates of play behavior: Glimpses into the structure and function
of mammalian playfulness. In Animal Play: Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecological
Perspectives; Bekoff, M., Byers, J.A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambidge, MA, USA,
1998; pp. 221–242.
48. Reynolds, P. Play, language and human evolution. In Play: Its Role in Development and
Evolution; Bruner, J.S., Jolly, A., Sylva, K., Eds.; Viking Penguin Inc: New York, NY, USA, 1976;
pp. 621–635.
49. Pellis, S.M.; Pellis, V. Rough-and-tumble play and the development of the social brain. Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 2007, 16, 95–98.
50. Siviy, S. Play and adversity: How the playful mammalian brain withstands threats and anxieties.
Am. J. Play 2010, 2, 298–314.
51. Patte, M. The therapeutic benefits of play for hospitalized children. In Play as Engagement and
Communication (Play and Culture Studies, volume 10); Nwokah, E.E., Ed.; University Press of
America: Lanham, MD, USA, 2010; pp. 3–22.
52. Fearn, M.; Howard, J. Play as a resource for children facing adversity: An exploration of
indicative case studies. Child. Soc. 2012, 26, 456–468.
53. Barnett, L. The adaptive powers of being playful. In Diversions and Divergences in Fields of
Play. Play and Culture Studies; Duncan, M.C., Chick, G., Aycock, A., Eds.; Ablex: Greenwich,
CT, USA, 1998; volume 1, pp. 97–120.
54. Geertz, C. Deep play: A description of the Balinese cockfight. In Play: Its Role in Development
and Evolution; Bruner, J.S., Jolly, A., Sylva, K., Eds.; Viking Penguin: New York, NY, USA,
1976; pp. 656–676.
55. Callois, R. Man, Play, and Games; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1961.
Children 2014, 1 300

56. Sutton-Smith, B. Towards an anthropology of play. In Studies in the Anthropology of Play:

Papers in Memory of B. Allan Tindall; Stevens, P., Ed.; Leisure Press: West Point, NY, USA,
57. Russell, W.; Lester, S. “Tell your mum I saved your life”: The relationship between children’s
play, uncertainty and risk. Avaliable online: www.ipaworld.org (accessed on 22 September 2014).
58. Lofdahl, A. Preschool teachers’ conceptions of children’s “chaotic play”. In Play: An
Interdisciplinary Synthesis; McMahon, F.F., Lytle, D.E., Sutton-Smith, B., Eds.; The Association
for the Study of Play: Lanham, MD, USA, 2005.
59. Diamond, A.; Barnett, S.W.; Thomas, J.; Munro, S. Preschool program improves cognitive
control. Science 2007, 318, 1387–1388.
60. Pellis, S.M.; Pellis, V. Play-fighting during early childhood and its role in preventing later chronic
aggression. In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development (online); Tremblay, R.E.,
Boivin, M., Peters, R., Eds.; Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic
Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012; pp. 1–4.
61. Reed, T.; Brown, M. The expression of care in the rough and tumle play of boys. J. Res. Child.
Educ. 2000, 15, 104–116.
62. Bruner, J. The nature and uses of immaturity. In Play: Its Role in Development and Evolution;
Bruner, J.S., Jolly, A., Sylva, K., Eds.; Viking Penguin Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1976;
pp. 28–64.
63. Henricks, T.A. Orderly and disorderly play: A comparison. Am. J. Play 2009, 2, 12–40.
64. Hart, J.L.; Tannock, M.T. Young children’s playfighting and use of war toys. In Encyclopedia on
Early Childhood Development (online); Tremblay, R.E., Boivin, M., Peters, R., Eds.; Centre of
Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child
Development: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2013; pp. 1–6.
65. Pellis, S.M.; Pellis, V.C. Play and the socially competent brain. PlayRights 2009, 2, 4–7.
66. Pellis, S.; Pellis, V. The Playful Brain: Venturing to the Limits of Neuroscience; Oneworld
Publications: Oxford, UK, 2009.
67. Hewes, J. Early Learning and Child Care, Faculty of Health and Community Studies, MacEwan
University, Edmonton AB T5J4P2, Canada. Play anecdote shared by Brittany Atkinson, child care
educator. Personal communication, 2014.
68. Pellegrini, A. A longitudinal study of popular and rejected childre’s rough-and-tumble play.
Early Educ. Dev. 1991, 2, 205–213.
69. Tannock, M. Rough and tumble play in early childhood settings: Challenges for personnel
training. In Play as Engagement and Communication (Play and Culture Studies); Nwokah, E.E.,
Ed.; University Press of America: Lanham, MD, USA, 2010; volume 10, pp. 143–164.
70. Storli, R. Characteristics of indoor rough-and-tumble play (R&T) with phsycial contact between
players in preschool. Nord. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2013, 6, 1–15.
71. Freeman, N.K.; Brown, M.H. Reconceptualizing rough and tumble play: Ban the banning. In
Social Contexts of Early Education, and Reconceptualizing Play (II); Reifel, R.S., Brown, M.H.,
Eds.; Elsevier JAI: Oxford, UK, 2004; volume 13, pp. 219–234.
72. Kalliala, M. Play Culture in a Changing World; Open University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
73. Rogers, S. Play and pedagogy: A conflict of interests? In Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early
Childhood Education: Concepts, Contexts and Cultures; Rogers, S., Ed.; Routledge: New York,
NY, USA, 2011; pp. 5–18.
Children 2014, 1 301

74. Cannella, G.S.; Viruru, R. Privileging child-centred, play-based instruction. In Deconstructing

Early Childhood Education: Social Justice and Revolution; Cannella, G.S., Ed.; Peter Lang: New
York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 117–136.
75. Brooker, L. Taking play seriously. In Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early Childhood
Education; Rogers, S., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 152–164.
76. Ailwood, J. Governing early childhood education through play. Contemp. Issues Early Child.
2003, 4, 286–299.
77. Grieshaber, S.; McCardle, F. The Trouble with Play; Open University Press: Berkshire, UK, 2010.
78. Brooker, L.; Edwards, S. Engaging Play; Open University Press: Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK, 2010.
79. Rogers, S. Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early Childhood Education: Concepts, Contexts and
Cultures; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
80. Lillemyr, O.F.; Dockett, S.; Perry, B. Varied Perspectives on Play and Learning: Theory and
Research on Early Years Education; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2013.
81. Makovichuk, L.; Hewes, J.; Lirette, T.; Thomas, N. Play, Participation and Possibilities: An Early
Learning and Child Care Curriculum Framework for Alberta. Avaiable online: www.childcare
framework.com (accessed on 22 September 2014).
82. Somerville, M.; Green, M. A pedagogy of “organized chaos”: Ecological learning in primary
schools. Child. Youth Environ. 2011, 21, 14–34.
83. Grove, A.; Lirette, T. Children and citizenship. In Leading the Way: Recognizing the Role of
Early Learning Lab Schools in Canadian Universities and Colleges; Langford, R., DiSanto, A.,
Eds.; School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2013; pp.
84. Russell, W. Towards a spatial theory of playwork: What can Lefebvre offer as a response to
playworkʼs inherent contradictions? In The Philosophy of Play; Ryall, E., Russell, W.,
McLean, M., Eds.; Routledge: Oxon, OX, USA, 2013; pp. 164–174.
85. Sellers, M. Young Children Becoming Curriculum: Deleuze, Te Whariki and Curricular
Understandings; Routledge: Abingdon, Oxon, UK, 2013.
86. Lester, S.; Russell, W.; Fitzpatrick, J. Co-creating an Adventure Playground (CAP): Reading
Playwork Stories, Practices and Artefacts. Report from an Action Research Project; University of
Gloucestershire: Gloucestershire, UK, 2014.

© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license